The larger role of the protests, should they continue, ought to be to reestablish the terms of the political debate. Historically, liberalism best succeeds when compared against a radical alternative. In the thirties and sixties, fear of extremism and mob violence made business elites eager to accept liberal compromise designed to preserve the system. Since 2009, the question of how to respond to the economy has been framed as a debate between meliorative liberalism and vicious reaction. In this climate, Wall Street has been howling about Obama’s mild verbal scolding of the industry, his plans to impose some measure of regulation upon it, and ever-so-slightly raise the tax levels of the very rich.

The protests can usefully re-center the debate. When Wall Street CEOs are expressing even tepid fear for their personal safety, terms like “class warfare” might start to be reserved for more stringent measures than the return of Clinton-era tax rates.

Can't be plainer than that. The unfocused mob must turn its attention to actual physical harm, in order to achieve the objectives of the Obama administration. An outright call for violence against innocent working men and women (it's unlikely the Occupy Wall Street kids can tell a Goldman-Sachs millionaire from a Goldman-Sachs bookkeeper). As Glenn Reynolds notes, Lara Logan may decide this is a good time to get out of town...

Chait thinks he'd be more productive to the liberal cause swinging a cudgel...at innocent New Yorkers

Remember, no matter how crazy and un-American this sounds, this is mainstream liberal thought from a mainstream figure. And one wonders what Barack Obama is thinking right now - reading Chait's proposed "reign of terror" against the American upper class, while he caresses a copy of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and ponders the perfection of the fit...